European knight vs Japanese Samurai

[Kajukenbopr]

I think we are comparing apples and oranges. The European Knights best element was on horseback, and although they knew how to fight hand to hand, a big part of that was the use of his armor. In the conditions you set out the samurai would have an advantage, but in a fluid combat situation the knight would win. I say this because the warrior culture of Europe was a rapidly evolving culture (use of gunpowder, seige engines, etc) where as Japanese warrior culture was very resistant to change.

yes, we know that swords will lose the battle against guns: that is not what is discussed here.

an European knight would also fall if shot at.

we are discussing the martial art aspects of both european and japanese knights.

[bushido_man96]

I think we are comparing apples and oranges. The European Knights best element was on horseback, and although they knew how to fight hand to hand, a big part of that was the use of his armor. In the conditions you set out the samurai would have an advantage, but in a fluid combat situation the knight would win. I say this because the warrior culture of Europe was a rapidly evolving culture (use of gunpowder, seige engines, etc) where as Japanese warrior culture was very resistant to change.

It really isn't apples to oranges so much. If you look back a ways, there is an article link posted in here that compares the similarities (and they are many) of the Knight and the Samurai. Not every knight was a mounted warrior. Also, not every samurai weilded a katana.

[RealWingChunKuen]

The Samurai.

[BMW]

Personally I think the Mongolian on his small ratty horse, with recurved bow, would, generally speaking, win against both knight and samurai. In the case of the knights in Hungary, I can't remember if they were Teutonic or Templars, they were I believe wiped out by the invading Mongols.

Mongols also were skilled wrestlers (I think all the various Mongolian tribes were).

The Mongols had way of fighting (speed of mobility, hit, run, hit again) which placed emphasis on the best personal missile fired system of its day (the recurved bow or also know as the composite bow). Today that personal missile fired system (or projectile) is the assault rifle.

While the Northern European knight would eventually distinguish himself as the greatest heavy calvary fighter known to history (not light calvary) once the knights adopted the stirup from the East, the Byzantine warriors of Constantinople actually had one of the most superb professional fighting force on earth. These fighters adopted aspects of the western heavy calvary with the recurved bow of the eastern Mongolians.

The Mongolians do not spur the same sense of romance in us as the tales and images of the knights and samurais. Kind of like the Escrimador does not spur the same sense of romance in us in Western culture as the "Karate Kid" (the movie and persona). But if I had to get into a prison knife fight I'd take the Escrimador on my side before the Karate Kid in his "mystical stance."

[bushido_man96]

The Mongolians were a fierce force. Their horseback archery was an amazing skill, and it made their forces quite dangerous, along with the tactics that they used.

I like your points. However, the bulk of the debate here is based more on the sword-against-sword skills between the Samurai and European Knight. You make some good points about overall combat, though.

[BMW]

The Mongolians were a fierce force. Their horseback archery was an amazing skill, and it made their forces quite dangerous, along with the tactics that they used.

I like your points. However, the bulk of the debate here is based more on the sword-against-sword skills between the Samurai and European Knight. You make some good points about overall combat, though.

Yeah, you're right. I just think the Mongolians often get over looked because they're cultural history has not gained the level of romanticism as the Western knights or Eastern samurai. I'm not sure why that is? Perhaps because Gothic culture produced distinctive architecture, paintings, songs and poetry? Perhaps the same with the Japanese culture from gardens to calligraphy?

Anyways, I'm no authority on knights or samurai but I would tend to go with the samurai winning. Perhaps that's my opinion shaped by stereotypes on the samurai or lack of knowledge on the knights own ability, but the samurai seem to have gained even the respect of the Jesuits (who thought a handful of Japanese samurai could take out a larger number of Chinese) for their stellar combat skills.

[Kajukenbopr]

I was actually impressed to learn how good the chain mails of the European Knights worked, they could stand direct blows from swords!

Now the question: which cuts better, the European sword or the Japanese swords?

[bushido_man96]

I was actually impressed to learn how good the chain mails of the European Knights worked, they could stand direct blows from swords!

Now the question: which cuts better, the European sword or the Japanese swords?

I would be willing to pose that the Japanese swords were better for cutting. However, that is what those blades were intended to do. Now, I don't want to leave the impression that European blades were not sharp, because they were. Those blades are more than capable of severing a limb from the body cleanly. But I do think that the Japanese blades were a better quality for cutting.

Now, when it comes to armor, the Europeans where head and shoulders above the rest. The armor that the Europeans engineered was so good, in fact, that it resulted in the change of some of the weaponary that was actually used to combat it, and led to some of the differences that you can see when sword fighting with our without armor.

[bushido_man96]

I just think the Mongolians often get over looked because they're cultural history has not gained the level of romanticism as the Western knights or Eastern samurai. I'm not sure why that is? Perhaps because Gothic culture produced distinctive architecture, paintings, songs and poetry? Perhaps the same with the Japanese culture from gardens to calligraphy?

I think this is mainly because the Mongolians were viewed as a barbaric force that seemed rather uncivilized; they were nomadic by nature, I believe, so they never really settled. I think that this barbaric image causes many to overlook them, and their prowess at combat, and the innovations that they contributed to combat.

In the end, they are looked at as the evil bad guys, I think, and no one wants the bad guys to win. However, the Mongolians made a habit out of winning for quite some time.

[NightOwl]

Barbarians or not, they knew how to make some fine BBQ....and if that is not a hallmark of civilization then I don't know what is.